DOVER — The Dover City Council took a major step forward in the city’s plans to ban all pit bull breeds from within the city limits and conducted the first reading of an ordinance to ban the dogs during Tuesday’s regular meeting.

Aldermen voted to hold the ordinance for 30 days and will vote to pass it during next month’s meeting.

The proposed ordinance entirely bans all pit bull breeds from the city limits and states that the banning is applicable to any dog that has been registered as a pit bull, referred to as such, or that is defined or identified as a dog belonging to any of the pit bull dog breeds. The list of banned pit bull dog breeds is as follows:

• American Pit Bull Terrier

• Staffordshire Bull Terrier

• American Staffordshire Bull Terrier

• American Bull Dog.

No new pit bulls will be allowed to enter into the city limits, and all pit bulls that currently existing within the city limits will be required to conform to strict guidelines.

An exemption in the ordinance will allow owners to keep pit bulls within the city limits. The exemption will be effective if and only if the owner can provide documented and physical proof that the dog is registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC) as a show or performance dog.

To prove that a dog is an AKC registered show dog, the required documentation must include:

• An AKC registration

• AKC three-generation pedigree

• Proof of the dog being used as a show dog once the dog reaches the age of 6

• The first five numbers of the AKC registration tattooed on the abdomen on the upper side of the left rear leg.

The ordinance goes on to state the exemption will not be applicable to any AKC pit bull dog that is found to be vicious or that in any way jeopardizes the well-being of humans or other domestic animals.

Current pit bull owners will have 30 days after the ordinance is passed to register the dog with the city clerk.

In order to maintain ownership or handling rights to the pit bull, the owner must be at least 21 years of age, must provide documentation that the animal was licensed prior to the ordinance being passed, must provide proof that the dog has received a rabies vaccination, and at his or her own expense, have the dog spayed or neutered and shall present documented proof from a licensed veterinarian that the sterilization was performed.

A pit bull may be exempted from sterilization if the owner can provide legal documentation that the dog is an AKC-registered show dog. Also, the dog may be exempt from sterilization if the owner can provide documentation from a licensed veterinarian stating that a spay or neuter would put the dog’s life at risk.

Afterward, the current pit bull owner will be required to bring the animal to Dover’s Animal Control Officer. The officer will assign a registration number to the dog, which will then be tattooed on the abdomen near the upper inside of the the right rear leg.

For owners allowed to maintain their pit bulls, the ordinance states the dog must be kept within an enclosure that will prevent their escape or attempted escape.

It also states the dog should never be allowed outside of its enclosure without being held on a leash and under the control of the owner. Owners must also display a sign which states “beware of dog” on their property, as well as a similar sign near the kennel or confining area.

Failure to comply with the rules and regulations of the ordinance will result in the immediate seizure of the pit bull and revocation of the right to a license to own said dog. It will be regarded as a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine no less than $150 and no more than $500.

Should the dog not be reclaimed within three business days, the dog will be humanely euthanized.

I just wanna know what the town, the state, the country plans on doing. Banning the breed until there ecstinct? I think Dover and the idiots who are with it are going about it the wrong way. The easy way instead of trying to make it work. And even if they are one of the lucky ones that get to stay in town they have to go through more rules and regulations than a freaking child molester or felon has to. I'm sorry but the people of Dover who are for it and the bigger than idiots who started it hit a nerve that just gets to me. Maybe one day they'll put a ban on all the non educated, jump on the bandwagon, "we heard pits were bad" good citizens.

There you go again spellchecking and insulting people who aint as edumucated and smart az yu. Shore whish wee culd meser up to ur x spectashuns. Why don't you take your pompous "Lil Abner" comments and place them in a convenient oriface. You should use some of your superhuman strength to help coax it in.

JaneRawlings why don't you stop getting all your info off the Internet and talk to some real Pitt owners. All your doing is making it worse for a good breed. You and all the other idiots who don't know about them or never had one.

JaneRawlings, perhaps you should do a little research before calling people liars and posting untruths. 'Pit Bull types" were known as Nanny Dogs for many, many years, throughout the 1800's and 1900's. Have you never watched Little Rascals? Petey was a 'Pit Bull type' and his character was chosen because of the history of these dogs. These dogs were in fact known for their courage and loyalty throughout history. I remember a time when the Doberman Pincher was the dog everyone wanted to ban, and also when the German Shepherd was the evil dog that everyone was told to be scared of. This is nothing more than mob mentality. People see several people in their circles thinking one way, and they join the herd. Unfortunately, many lack the desire to think for themselves anymore and when others disagree with their opinion, they resort to name calling and ugliness that is totally uncalled for.

I had never owned a pit bull, until one showed up at my house with puppies and someone had dumped them off. That was many years ago and she is still a loved member of our family and has never shown any aggressiveness toward anyone. She is playful and loving. I feel sorry for those who read a couple articles on the internet and form their opinion on such limited information.

Ok Im going to try to do this as nice as possible, but before you go talking about banning a breed of dog, just because some dumb rednecks have used them as dog fighters lets get all the information. First off it is possible to make any breed of dog mean. Dogs originally come from the wolf family (and in case you didn't know wolves are very aggressive). Lets start by talking about these so called attacks everyone wants to throw up. Did you read or tell the REST OF THE STORY?? Probably not, most people see pit bull attack and fail to follow through with the entire story. First off most kids getting attacked is because of lack of adult supervision. So its idiotic irresponsible parents that get their kids attacked. Most attacks happen at the pit bulls home and usually it is not the childs home. So where was the parents?? Second, how many good stories have you read about pit bulls? Ive got millions of them if your even the slight bit interested in getting educated on the subject. Ive got one of a pit bull pulling its owner off of train tracks before he got hit, one pit bull saved its human children from a puma attack and messed the dog up pretty bad. You have to learn to know the full story of both sides before you begin and argument. If not its pretty much moot. Also if you wanna start this bull of banning something just because a small majority of it did something bad then lets start with the human race. White males are serial killers more than any other race, so lets ban white males, black and Hispanic males are more associated with gangs, lets ban blacks and Hispanics, white females are more associated with prostitution and pornography in America, lets ban white females. I could go on and on. So if we are stupid enough to ban something just because a few idiots are out there then we would be banning the entire human race and the entire animal kingdom. I said none of the above to sound racist or argumentative but to prove a point. Theres good and bad in every race and in every breed. If you don't like pit bulls don't own one, but don't take that right away from every other American. All these rednecks have gotten in such an uproar about taking guns away and how that violates the Constitution, yet taking my right away to own the dog of my choice is a violation of my rights as well. So if you can own your guns (Which by the way kill far more people than pit bulls), why can I not own the dog of my choice?? Its time these innocent animals had a voice, and by gosh I will go to my grave to defend and protect them. If you think that pit bulls should be banned than you are obviously a very uneducated person who has chosen to listen to the media hype instead of having your own views and finding things out for yourself. Im sorry if this has hurt or offended anyone its just so true. Wake up America this country is just trying little by little to take our rights away and this is just the first step. These animals have done nothing wrong, but have idiots for owners. And you prove that by the way that they allowed Micheal Vick to get away with what he did. That was just telling America that its ok to fight dogs. So before you go and judge something just because a few idiots did it, think. No animal deserves this kind of treatment. You wouldn't like it if I put a petition out to ban your unruly hellion of a kid!!!

Not only do I have a GED I have 2 college degrees, and am currently working on my masters degree. I took tons of law classes in college and I do know what Im talking about. The pit bull ban is a violation of due process. Im sorry to use such big words that you cant understand, why don't you google it!!! Which is where you get all of your information from obviously. And if you were educated at all you would know that you have to get your information from trusted accredited sites, google not being one of those!!! I spent and entire semester doing a research project over pit bulls and idiots like you!! So if you want the real info Id be glad to show you what a college educated person can prove!! So if you have more to say Id love to hear it, but I can guarantee you that Ill up the annie every time!!!

You proved my point by even posting what you said! You obviously did not check your spelling when you typed this up, or you were just to uneducated to know how to spell or even use spell check! It takes a very uneducated person to want to ban anything just because of a few idiots that misuse it!! And I have a name and its not Darling to a redneck like you!! And yes I have a GED and that is obviously one step up from you!! I also have 2 college degrees that taught me that if Im going to bash someone I will at least look educated while doing it! But I so appreciate you posting this, because you helped to prove my point!! Please do yourself a favor and before you post your uneducated, illegitimate, ideas on here get and education and don't make yourself look like an idiot! I actually feel bad for you! Hey maybe we should ban redneck idiots that cant spell!!!! LOL

Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. and Canada, 1982 through 2007 (updated yearly)

Merritt Clifton’s study is a medley of newspaper articles that present a very biased and inaccurate overview of dog bites. It is more of an incomplete tally of severe bites than a study.

Media as only source of data

Clifton’s only source for his findings is the media, and he focuses on cases that required “extensive hospitalization.” This term is never defined in his article. It might mean stitches, or it might mean amputation.

Missing data

In the beginning of the study, Clifton states that attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, dogs trained to fight, and dogs whose breed may be uncertain are excluded. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a good number of attacks are not included. This might leave the reader with the assumption that Clifton has included all other dog attacks.

The CDC reports in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that of the “333,700 patients treated for dog bites in emergency departments in 1994, approximately 6,000 were hospitalized.” (July 4, 2003 article at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm)

However, Clifton lists only 2,363 bites total—and that is over the 25 years that he has tallied media reports of attacks.

If approximately 6,000 people require hospitalization each year because of a dog attack, then over 25 years, there would have been 150,000 people hospitalized. Yet Clifton has apparently only found media reports for 1.6% of all these attacks.

Clifton’s report therefore implies that the remaining 98.4% of bites that required “extensive hospitalization” according to the CDC were by non-identifiable types of dogs or police, guard, or fighting animals. This is highly unlikely. Clifton’s data is so incomplete as to make it virtually useless for analyzing patterns related to severe dog attacks.

Miscategorization and misidentification

On Clifton’s list of all dog attacks and the dogs’ breed, he makes several mistakes.

He lists the Australian Blue Heeler, the Australian Cattle Dog, the Blue Heeler, and the Queensland Heeler as separate breeds. These are all different names for the same breed. Listing these attacks under separate breed names skewed the results of the study.

It should be noted that Clifton does not attempt to divide pit bull attacks into separate breed names. If he were to do so, it is not clear what his study results would show; “pit bull” is a generic term for at least three different breeds of dogs, and dozens of other breeds are often lumped into the “pit bull” category based on their similar appearance.

There are also 33 attacks that were supposedly done by “Bull Mastiff (Presa Canario).” Bull Mastiffs and Presa Canarios are distinctly different breeds, and if there is question about which breed the dog is, this attack should not be listed as a “clearly identified breed.”

The report also attempts to identify the predominant breed in dogs. Clifton gives no reason as to why he listed an attack as being done by an Akita/Chow mix instead of a Chow/Akita mix. How did he determine that Beagle was the predominant breed in the attack done by a Beagle/German Shepherd Dog?

In Clifton’s analysis, he attempts to evaluate dog behavior based on breed, bite frequency, and “degree of relative risk.”

Yet Clifton has shown numerous times in his report that he cannot identify a breed properly, or even spell breed names correctly.

Both bite frequency and degree of relative risk are impossible to calculate. No one knows how often breeds bite since hundreds of bites go unreported. And to attempt to determine a “degree of relative risk,” Clifton would have to know every factor that contributed to every dog bite.

Even the CDC concluded at the end of their own flawed study (see above) that there is no way to determine relative risk:

There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

Merritt Clifton apparently does not understand the many factors that go into a reliable calculation of relative risk, nor does he wish to acknowledge that trained researchers realize that many, if not most, of those factors can never be known or calculated.

Misapplied and misinterpreted data

Clifton’s analysis section is full of faults and absurd assumptions.

Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern . . . Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are.

As discussed, Clifton has tallied less than two percent of all severe dog attacks. He clearly has no idea how frequently pit bulls—or any other type of dog, for that matter—bite.

Furthermore, without knowing all bite factors, including the dog’s health, condition, sexual state, training, environment, and the behavior of the victim, there is no way Clifton could possibly conceive any possible pattern or difference as to who pit bulls attack.

Since Clifton is tallying media articles, his conclusion seems to be more telling of media coverage of dog bites. If one was to assume that the media is more likely to publish a pit bull attack than an attack by another type of dog, and more likely to publish an attack on a child than an attack on an adult, it stands to reason that while media-reported pit bull attacks include both adults and children, media reports about other types of dogs’ attacks may only be considered newsworthy when a child is involved. Thus, it may appear that pit bulls are overrepresented in attacks on adults.

Misunderstanding of dog behavior and ignorance about breed standards

They [pit bulls] are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls’ tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.

All dogs exhibit warning signs. Pit bull expert Diane Jessup, a retired animal control officer and police dog trainer, stated in her book The Working Pit Bull, “all Pit Bulls do give some warning that they are going to attack.”

Studies have indicated that, generally, people do not understand dog body language. A person may not recognize that a dog standing very still, legs apart, tail waving slowly, is indicating an impending attack. When one cannot identify all possible threat behaviors, it might appear that a dog is attacking without warning. Clifton provides no evidence to show that victims are oblivious to impending attacks by pit bulls at a greater rate than impending attacks by other dogs.

Clifton’s statement that pit bulls’ tails are customarily docked demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the breed-type. A list of traditionally docked breeds can be found on the Council of Docked Breeds website (http://www.cdb.org/list.htm). None of the pit bull breeds, to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrer, can be found on this list. Nor can any of the breeds that are occasionally mistaken to be “pit bulls,” such as the American Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, and Bull Terrier. Tail docking has never been common or customary with any of the pit bull types. Docking the tail of an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier means immediate disqualification from the show ring.

To substantiate his assertions that 1) pit bulls customarily have their tails docked, and 2) tail docking results in an inability for people to read canine body language, Clifton would need to provide evidence that a disproportionate number of pit bulls or attacking dogs have had their tails docked, and further, that a dog’s tail is the primary predictor of an impending attack. He provides no such evidence.

There are over 50 different breeds of dogs, including the Cocker Spaniel, Airedale Terrier, German pointer, Jack Russell Terrier, Poodle, and Corgi, whose tails are traditionally docked. (Council of Docked Breeds) If tail docking inhibits the communication of impending aggression, why are tail-less breeds not disproportionately represented in any list of severe and fatal attacks?

Excuses for some breeds’ behavior

Rottweilers . . . seem to show up disproportionately often in the mauling, killing, and maiming statistics simply because they are both quite popular and very powerful . . .

Clifton excuses Rottweilers’ attacks due to the fact that they are both popular and powerful. Yet pit bulls, who are also popular and strong, are not given this same excuse.

In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs. None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the part of an otherwise healthy dog. [sic]

Here Clifton excuses German Shepherd attacks due to outside factors. This implies that no other type of dog in his study attacked because it was left neglected, abused, chained or left untrained and unsocialized. Yet he offers no proof to substantiate the idea that all other cases he recorded involved trained, socialized, beloved family pets.

[I]t is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.

Clifton implies that pit bulls and Rottweilers no longer behave like dogs under extra-ordinary circumstances. What those extra-ordinary circumstances are is unstated, and how pit bulls and Rottweilers suddenly become behaviorally different under those circumstances is not demonstrated in the report.

To imply that pit bulls and Rottweilers are not to be regarded as dogs even though they act like ordinary canines is absurd. Clifton’s agenda is quite clear—he badly wishes to portray pit bulls and Rottweilers as somehow unique—but his “study” is so flawed that he cannot prove any of his sweeping generalizations.

Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk.

Here Clifton returns to the idea that, somehow, we can calculate the “riskiness” or “relative danger” of particular breeds or types of dogs. As demonstrated earlier in this article, it is not possible to do this.

Furthermore, it is totally bizarre to say that temperament is not an issue. Temperament plays a huge part in dog attacks, as any canine behaviorist or dog bite researcher would agree. A very large dog may be able to do a lot of damage if it bites someone, but if the dog is extremely placid by nature (temperament), there’s very little danger to the public. On the contrary, a smaller dog may do less damage if it attacks, but if it is extremely aggressive, it could maul or kill someone. To suggest that temperament isn’t even relevant is ridiculous.

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton’s own “study” disproves his assertions. His own tally of severe and fatal dog attacks includes over 50 different types and breeds of dogs. It seems clear that dogs of all types can have “bad moments” that result in severe injury.

Many studies have attempted to analyze the frequency and contributing factors of dog bites. Unfortunately, these studies are biased and use inaccurate counts of dog bites. There are numerous factors in a dog attack, many of which are not even considered in the major studies.

As dog attack expert Karen Delise says:

All dog bites/attacks are situational. Dogs bite in reaction to certain threats or stimuli—statistics about dog attacks purport to represent “canine aggression” however [they] do not take into account ANY of the situations under which a bite occurred. (E-mail interview with Delise, 4/22/08)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998

This is perhaps the most misused and misunderstood dog bite report. Politicians and the media often quote this report inaccurately.

The main flaw in the CDC study is that it attempts to characterize dog attacks by breed, while ignoring all other possible factors.

Media as a source of data

The CDC study uses media accounts in their findings. The media is known to misreport and skew articles on dog attacks and misidentify breeds (see Difficulty of Breed Identification).

Missing data

The report also admits that it does not cover twenty-eight percent of fatal dog attacks. It is not clear what the study results would have been if all fatal dog attacks were included.

Miscategorization and misidentification

In the study, on the chart showing the number of dog bite-related deaths, the CDC has divided the attacks into sections titled Purebred and Crossbred. The CDC has listed Pit Bull-type and Husky-type under both the Purebred and Crossbred divisions. A “type” is not a breed.

Jane Rawlings, I never once said that I was a expert on dog behavior or training. I just stated what was common sense. That is important to well socialize any dog and train it from the time it is a puppy. Haven't you ever heard that it is hard to teach a old dog new tricks? As for saying that you haven't been around "pit bull types" I don't believe that I ever referred to you. I simply stated that "some people" have not. This is not a fantasy as you put it. I know some people that do all of this complaining about "pit bull type" dogs and when you ask if they have been around them then they say no but they heard about how they are. So please do not put words in my mouth. I originally posted my previous comment not to start a bunch of bickering but to express my opinion about this breed and how it will effect my family member and yes I am talking about my pit bull.

Not the dogs? Are you kidding me? Tell that to my friend whose baby boy was killed by 2 this year. The dogs involved were raised since pups and very well trained and cared for. I was attacked 4 years ago and still suffer from PTSD. Any dog can bite, yes. But we're talking about death here. When a pit bull bites, it will NOT let go without a very strong fight...and the pain and suffering is unimaginable compared to any other breed. Heck, there are even advocates of pit bulls that have been killed by their very own pit! Come on and wake up people. This would be the smartest move the town could make.

These people don't care about your child or anyone else's. All they care about is making their fashion statement by owning pit bull type dogs.

Although...as the scientific studies showed, they also have problems with exaggerated narcissism and generally anti-social behaviour. They can't stand it that anyone, even a government authority, would impose any rules upon them in any way. This is demonstrated in practice by the fact that 68% of them have criminal records.

They are a tiny minority, about 0.78% of any random constituency. It's good that Dover is choosing to cater to the vast majority -- 99.22% -- of its residents and voters.

Ohio did it once as an entire state ruling, and they lost millions in tourism from those that wouldn't tolerate their discriminatory practices.

Denver tried it and repealed it. So have dozens of other places - all repealed.

Why? because they discovered it does not WORK. The problem is NOT the dogs. The problem is the owners. Getting rid of the dogs wont change a thing. Fining bad owners for bad practices WILL.

That is the only thing that has been proven to be successful in the past when "pit bulls" became a "problem". It always winds up the exact same thing. The cities and towns quickly find out that removing pit bulls just has crummy animal owners replace them with other large breeds. Rotties, sheps, mastiffs, boxers, akitas, etc etc .

Now what? You make all those breeds illegal until the only thing a dog lover can have is a poodle?

The ONLY successful way to deal with problem "dogs" is to deal with their problem owners because THAT is where your true issue is.

Instill HUGE fines on people that act irresponsibly with their dogs. Then you will successfully solve any issues you believe now are the dogs.

Also, as others have said, pit bull is not a breed. Take a look at this:

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Find the ones you think are pit bulls and click on them. Was it a pit bull?

There is no true way INCLUDING DNA testing to determine what is a pit bull (which is a MIXED breed) and what is not.

I urge the town to not instill this absurd policy that has proven to be a failure EVERY SINGLE OTHER PLACE IT HAS BEEN TRIED.

Wow. This person is really living in a fantasy world. Denver's ban is still in place -- and they haven't had a dog bite related fatality in thirty years. Not even a hospitalization due to dog bite. The mauling and killing stopped within a year of the ban being put in place.

As for Ohio, within two weeks of removing the 'inherently dangerous' designation from pit bull type dogs, there were two deaths by pit bull there and three horrendous maulings. The instant they don't have to be careful anymore for fear of losing their pit bull, the pit bull people become criminally negligent and depravedly indifferent.

BTW, Ohio is now losing a lot of tourism because people prefer to visit places where pit bulls aren't pulling people off of bicycles and out of tents.

Yet again, the pit fanatic comes in saying 'it is so because I say it is so'. They seem incapable of absorbing information, but just repeat the same things over and over.

The pit / bulldog type was never, not ever, revered for 'courage' or 'loyalty'. It was an instrument of entertainment for a crowd that liked to watch a group of them tear apart a living, panicking, desperately trying to flee horse (for example) that was confined to a pit where there was no escape.

Back in those days, and in fact until the 1950s, no one would ever have considered keeping one of these bulldog types in a household with humans. No one would have considered saying they were anything like the normal dogs that did live with people on their farms and in their homes. Everyone knew they were different from all other dogs and had no problem saying so. After all, back then it wasn't a thing to be ashamed of (as it is now) that you loved to watch vulnerable, confined animals be tortured to death. No need to hide the fact by lying as the pit bull fanatics do nowadays.

I don't know that there is much more that I can say that Cory DVM hasn't already said. However, I feel the need to speak my mind since how I am a Dover resident with a "pit bull type" dog as one of my family members. First of all, there are several of the people that are going around complaining about "pit bull type" dogs that probably haven't even really been around them to begin with. They have just formed their own opinion based on other peoples judgments of this breeds and if you have been around pits and you have had a bad experience I am sorry however that should not be taken out on the whole breed. The problem is not in the breed itself but in the owners that have them and has neglected to socialize them or take them to obedience classes. If you did not correct your child or teach them right from wrong they would go around making all the wrong choices as well. This is no different. Any puppy should be trained right from wrong from the beginning when it is young to insure that it continues to be well behaved when it is a adult. This is the case in all breeds not just pit bulls. It doesn't seem right to take everyone's right to have this breed as a family member away when just a few are to blame. Why not penalize the ignorant owners who did not properly train their dogs or keep them in a fence in yard?

It's presumptuous of you to imagine we haven't been around pit bull type dogs, then elevate that fantasy to fact. Aside from that, the fact that a person like you interacts with a few of this type of dog doesn't make you an expert on general dog behavior, or even on the pit bull types.

All you've really done here is repeat the same old things the pit bull fans always say, none of which have any basis in fact or reality. I don't understand why you all think that repeating fictions makes them any more true.

This is discrimination of sterotyping a type of dog because of irresponsible owners. No not everyone that owns these type of dogs have them for the purpose of fighting or anything of the sort. They can be very well mannered animals. Their main goal is to please their master so if their owner is a responsible individual that respects these type of dogs they properly train and raise them to be sociable with other dogs as well as people. No these dogs are not meant for just anyone. They need love and attention and lots of excercise. They are wonderful with children. I have personaly been around these type of dogs my entire life and have never had a bad experience because they were trained and maintained properly. My children have everyday hands on contact with them daily and have never had a negative issue but have been biten by chiuahuas that some of my family own and have had to have stitches from them so why arent they being targeted no matter the size of the dog if its vicious its vicious. Why target responsible owners when its the bad seeds that give these dogs a bad name.

There are other registries that register Pit Bull types not only the AKC. The only Pit Bull Type that the AKC registers is the American Staffordshire Terrier. So where does that leave the other owners who show their dogs with other reputable registries such as the UKC, ADBA, ABKC, BBRC ....ect. These registries also host shows in which the breed can earn titles in conformation, agility, weight pull, obedience ...ect. There is a huge problem when trying to discriminate a breed that looks like other breed and that the people trying to ban them know absolutely nothing about how this dog is currently registered, what it's being bred and used for TODAY... not in the past.

We as advocates for this breed, responsible pit bull type owner, breeders, and show handlers for the breed are not trying to convince the public that this breed is the best breed for every family. This breed like any other at all times should be securely contained and supervised. This breed IS NOT for everyone yet a lot of people who don't have the time, love, knowledge and experience it takes to properly raise, socialize and care the needs of this power dog. The pit bull is smart, loving, curious, loyal and has willingness to please. This dog needs to be part of the family, in needs a life long commitment and investment of your time in order for it to thrive as member of the family and community. People who own this dog as a status symbol, fighting or protection get these dog and they put them on chains, throw them in a yard and never teach them how to behave in a social environment with people and other dogs. These are the people that you should go after people who neglect their dogs not an entire breed. I'm for HSL... Human Specific Legislation get our breed out of the hands of people who can not provide for this breeds specific needs.

I agree 100% with you Dr Key!!! I've been to numerous shows as well and never saw any accidents at all, human nor dog. Now the situation I'm in, I have a show quality pit bull but am not registered through AKC because she is merely just part of my family. Wouldn't even be a good guard dog really because she loves everyone. Never hurt anything or anyone or attempted to. And as you said, she is my property and I won't give her up, EVER!!! That's like someone trying to take a child from me. Won't happen, EVER!!

Wow. Love the generalizations, everyone. So. Because I own and SHOW "pit bull type" dogs, that makes me...what? A psychopath? Drug dealer? Dog fighter?? Do you all believe all African Americans are murderers and thieves? Come on. That's ridiculous, right?

I appreciate the schooling on the history of the breed, but it was unnecessary. Hey, did you know that white people used to keep slaves too? And that black people were inferior and genetically predisposed to stupidity, among other things? That was no truer than believing these dogs-all these dogs-are wired to kill.

Some of them-yes, they are. But what about the other 99%? Why do they suffer? These dogs are the most popular (albeit overbred) dogs in the world. They are also the most often misidentified. I've seen many a lab mix mislabeled as a "pit bull".

I get that I, even with years of experience behind me in showing, breeding, training and medically treating these dogs, will never spout enough data, enough studies (and I'd like to see the one that proves all pit owners are crazy and narcissistic) to convince people like you that labeling an entire breed (actually multiple breeds) as having one EASILY BRED OUT trait is wrong. I just came back from a show with 200 pit bull "type" dogs. Not one incident, man or dog-related. We were even on the news. We've hosted multiple shows in the last few years. Same stats. Luck? A fluke? What is it?

As for my constitutional rights, in Arkansas animals are considered personal property. That's why you can't get pain and suffering if you sue someone for killing your dog. So yes, it's unconstitutional for anyone to say what kind of dog I can own, breed or take out in public.

PS- Sorry I was being modest in saying "nearly" an expert. I have studied BSL for years.

Finally at a real computer so I can post some more facts and misconceptions...

Risk Assessment and the Population Problem

One of the most common and enduring myths surrounding the oft-abused CDC report on fatal dog attacks (see below) is that it somehow demonstrates that certain breeds of dogs are “more likely” to attack or kill than other breeds.

The CDC has made it clear, both in the preface and the conclusion of their study, as well as on their website below the link to the study, that the study’s statistics cannot be interpreted in that manner.

In order to determine whether a breed of dog is “riskier” than another breed, a standard risk calculation must be performed. The easiest way to understand this calculation is through an example.

If you record one bite by a green dog and ten bites by purple dogs, which is more likely to bite—a green dog or a purple dog? If you look at the numbers alone, you might think that purple dogs are more dangerous than green dogs, because there are more bites by purple dogs.

However, it turns out that there are five green dogs total, one of which bit. And there are one hundred purple dogs total, ten of which bit. Now which type of dog is more likely to bite? Based on the data, one out of five green dogs have bitten, or 20%, while only one out of ten purple dogs have bitten, or 10%.

Once we know what the total population of green and purple dogs is, we are able to calculate risk.

And as the CDC has determined, it is not possible to accurately provide total population data for all breeds or types of dogs. Additionally, there are a number of complicating factors, including how to categorize mixed breed dogs.

And to add to the difficulty, while risk assessment might work if all dogs were genetically identical and were raised and kept in identical environments, this does not reflect reality. Individual dogs have widely varying temperaments and are raised and trained by different owners in different environments, so there are a number of factors beside breed that play into whether a dog is likely to bite or not. In fact, there are a handful of environmental factors (such as the way the dog is kept) that are far more predictive of aggressive behavior than a dog’s breed or type. (Delise, 2002, 2007)

One of the most common and enduring myths surrounding the oft-abused CDC report on fatal dog attacks (see below) is that it somehow demonstrates that certain breeds of dogs are “more likely” to attack or kill than other breeds.

The CDC has made it clear, both in the preface and the conclusion of their study, as well as on their website below the link to the study, that the study’s statistics cannot be interpreted in that manner.

In order to determine whether a breed of dog is “riskier” than another breed, a standard risk calculation must be performed. The easiest way to understand this calculation is through an example.

If you record one bite by a green dog and ten bites by purple dogs, which is more likely to bite—a green dog or a purple dog? If you look at the numbers alone, you might think that purple dogs are more dangerous than green dogs, because there are more bites by purple dogs.

However, it turns out that there are five green dogs total, one of which bit. And there are one hundred purple dogs total, ten of which bit. Now which type of dog is more likely to bite? Based on the data, one out of five green dogs have bitten, or 20%, while only one out of ten purple dogs have bitten, or 10%.

Once we know what the total population of green and purple dogs is, we are able to calculate risk.

And as the CDC has determined, it is not possible to accurately provide total population data for all breeds or types of dogs. Additionally, there are a number of complicating factors, including how to categorize mixed breed dogs.

And to add to the difficulty, while risk assessment might work if all dogs were genetically identical and were raised and kept in identical environments, this does not reflect reality. Individual dogs have widely varying temperaments and are raised and trained by different owners in different environments, so there are a number of factors beside breed that play into whether a dog is likely to bite or not. In fact, there are a handful of environmental factors (such as the way the dog is kept) that are far more predictive of aggressive behavior than a dog’s breed or type. (Delise, 2002, 2007)

There has been no published study of the number of dog bites suffered by humans which resulted from an attack or attempted attack by one dog against another dog. Nevertheless, the experience of Attorney Kenneth Phillips suggests that a significant percentage of bites to humans result from such incidents. For that reason, it is his opinion that a dog's propensity to attack other dogs clearly makes that dog dangerous to people.

Approximately one-third of Mr. Phillips' cases started out as a dog attacking another dog, and then turned into a dog attacking a person. For example:

A 14-year-old girl was walking her puppy in a small Texas town. Across the street, a pit bull in the fenced front yard spied the puppy. The pit jumped the fence and raced toward the girl and her pet. Seeing the pit coming, the girl picked up her puppy and held it over her head. The pit bull arrived and began biting the girl on her arms, legs and buttocks, which left her with ugly, permanent scars. The physical injuries and medical expenses resulted in a settlement of $100,000.00.

An eye surgeon took his dog to a dog park. While there, his dog and another began to fight. The other dog was a mastiff; the doctor's dog was a labrador. The mastiff grabbed the labrador by the throat and started shaking it. Neither the mastiff's owner nor the doctor could make the mastiff let go. The doctor had a can of Mace in his pocket. He sprayed Mace into the eyes of the mastiff. It let go of the labrador's throat and began biting the doctor on his hand. As a result of the injuries to his hand, the doctor finds it difficult to engage in his occupation as an eye surgeon who has to do microsurgery -- a job that requires steady hands. The settlement was $50,000.00.

On the basis of cases which he handled or was involved in, Mr. Phillips is of the opinion that one of the things that makes any dog dangerous to people is its propensity to attack other dogs. The reason is that the owner of the other dog is often nearby, either trying to pull the dog away, holding the dog, or breaking up the fight. It is natural for a human being to protect his or her pet. This is a normal human response to a dog fight -- unless the person is a criminal who attends dog fights.

Therefore this is an unpublicized danger worthy of further attention and study. For example, people need to know how to protect their dog (vigilance, keep it on a leash, be familiar with the other dogs in the neighborhood, etc.) and how to break up a dog fight without getting hurt (grabbing a dog by its legs rather than reaching into its mouth). The authorities need to study the issue further.

There is a side of this that is a current hot topic in the dog world: breed specific laws. It is a sad fact of life that the pit bull was created by mankind to kill other small animals. Like it or not, that is what the dog was bred for, and it remains the essence of the dog. Any one pit bull might be sweet to its owner, but is still "hard-wired" to kill other small animals. For that reason, pit bulls are dangerous to people because they have the in-born propensity to attack other people's pets, which often results in a redirected attack against the other people, or a bite to another person.

Yes, pit bulls are designer breeds created to fight to the death even when the opponent is a newborn baby. Pit bulls attack every day, ending lives, ruining lives, destroying families financially, and the pit bulls that do this are kicked, stabbed, shot, cut in half with shovels. Pit bulls are just a losing breed all the way around for their victims and themselves.

Yet another very uneducated statement!! And when children are killed by any type of dog, my first question would be where are the parents?? If the parents were watching the children they would still be alive!! Get your facts straight!!